Asking for common comprehension of plain text is a high bar
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The courts ruled on this a century ago
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Generally it’s been interpreted loosely to include anchor babies. This can change w amendment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
In fact, the jurisdiction issue is why we have to send them back. They are not under our jurisdiction, so we have no authority to hold them and must return them to their own lands as swiftly as possible, where they have their own citizenship.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Bring on the Supreme Court, before the dems pack it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"Subject to jurisduction" was meant exclude babies of foreign diplomatic personnel, who for various reasons did not want children to be subject to US laws. S.J. Britt, Asst U S Attorney (ret)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Anchor babies are not citizens
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Supreme Court to interpret
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Correction please but I understood the Supreme Court has never recognized any limit on the jurisdiction of the United States nor is there one in the Constitution. How can the second requirement be failed?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.